Whether Doctrine of Absolute
Immunity Bars Employee’s Claim that Employer’s Suit Brought in Retaliation for
Employee’s Pursuit of Claim for Workers’ Compensation Benefits. The
plaintiff brought this action against the defendant, its former employee, seeking
to rescind an agreement it had entered with the defendant regarding the terms
under which the defendant’s employment was terminated. The plaintiff claimed
that the agreement was procured through fraud. In particular, it asserted that
the agreement contained a provision by which it agreed to pay the defendant
over $70,000 in return for the defendant’s release of any claims that he had
against the plaintiff, including any claim for workers’ compensation benefits.
The plaintiff alleged that the defendant signed the agreement with no intention
of honoring that provision and that, in breach of the agreement, he pursued a
workers’ compensation claim against the plaintiff. The defendant filed a
counterclaim, alleging that the plaintiff filed this suit in retaliation for
his exercise of his rights under the Workers’ Compensation Act in violation of General
Statutes § 31-290a. The plaintiff moved to dismiss the counterclaim, arguing
that it was barred by the doctrine of absolute immunity as applied to
statements made in the context of judicial proceedings. The plaintiff argued
that absolute immunity barred the retaliation claim because that claim was
premised solely on the plaintiff’s act of bringing this lawsuit. The trial
court denied the plaintiff’s motion to dismiss. It noted that the question of whether
immunity applies in any given case requires a balancing of interests, and it
found that a balancing of the interests involved here weighed against applying
the doctrine of absolute immunity to bar the defendant’s claim of retaliation
in violation of § 31-290a. In this interlocutory appeal, the Supreme Court
will determine whether the trial court properly denied the plaintiff’s motion
to dismiss the defendant’s counterclaim.